Newt vows: Opportunity to “convert all of America” did not die with Falwell
posted at 7:46 pm on May 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Maybe I’m misreading him. I hope I’m misreading him.
Gingrich said after his speech [at Liberty University] that Falwell’s death would not slow the Christian right’s efforts.
“Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created,” Gingrich said.
Does he mean “convert all of America” … to Christianity? All religions seek converts, but I’ve been assuming that the nonviolent ones, in modern times at least, try to limit themselves to people who are seeking spiritual fulfillment but haven’t found it yet. Supply meeting demand, in other words. I wasn’t aware that Christian conservatives had taken the entire body politic, seekers or not, as their quota. No doubt the response to that would be that we’re all seekers, even if we don’t know it yet, and thus we’re all fair game for proselyzation and persuasion. To which Richard Dawkins would surely say, on the contrary — we’re all non-seekers, even if most of us don’t know it yet.
Maybe I’ve misread him, or maybe Newt has misread Christian conservatives. Or maybe Hitchens was right when he complained in his book about religion always having designs on him and never being able to leave him alone. Any commenters able to help me figure this out? There’s always some bristling in the religion threads about Hitch and Dawkins and Sam Harris being “evangelical atheists” who can’t resist pushing their beliefs on people, so I’m sure there’ll be loads of outrage at Newt here. Or is Newt off the hook on grounds that “America’s always been a Christian country” and therefore Christians are especially entitled to be imperialistic in setting their goals?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
As the lone TRBC/LU member on this site (I think), I did watch the service (dragging 4 kids to a huge stadium is a little difficult) on TV. I would presume that a more accurate way to saying “convert all of America” would be better said “evangelize all of America”. The latter meaning offering the Christian faith in a way that those who are seeking will be able to find it.
“Convert all of America” doesn’t mean some Taliban-like Theocracy. Jesus said “Go and make disciples”, but there is no obligation on the part of the hearer to respond.
Clear as mud?
acleaver on May 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I completely agree with what he’s saying about confronting radical secularism, but “convert all of America” sounds like something that would raise an eyebrow with the Founding Fathers, whether they were Christian or not.
I would hope he means reversing the secularist push to become a completely Godless society.
infidel4life on May 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM
What was he thinking?
BadBrad on May 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM
“Convert all of America” doesn’t mean some Taliban-like Theocracy.
That’s what they all say right before they kick your door in and drag you out of your house on a Sunday morning.
You’ll have to take my snooze alarm out of my cold, dead hand!
harrison on May 19, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Maybe he was actually issuing a warning about Islam?
Blacklake on May 19, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Hint: Turn off the alarm on weekends.
;-)
infidel4life on May 19, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I question the timing. No, really, I do. Hasn’t Dobson been saying that few are acceptable? Sounds like Newt is angling for the endorsement (that doesn’t exist because Dobson is just throwing his utterly non-influential opinion out there).
Smart politics to get the nomination, poor politics to gain the White House. This will bite Newt in the butt, should he throw his hat in the ring.
If it isn’t pandering to a segment of the electorate, it’s darn creepy.
Krydor on May 19, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Of course if you live in Lynchburg, you just go to bedside Baptist and turn on the TV. :)
No dragging anyone out of bed here! Of course, they’re expecting a scary number of people tomorrow morning for the church service, so we’ll have to get there pretty early to get a parking spot. Thank goodness they have shuttles, and I know I’ll get a seat because I sing in the choir.
acleaver on May 19, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Here’s the full speech. I didn’t find the quote, but maybe Newt ad libbed a bit?
Slublog on May 19, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Agreed. It sounds like he wants to “continue” some mass conversion. Kinda creepy.
amerpundit on May 19, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Not at sword or gunpoint. Just through witness and compassion.
tdau1997 on May 19, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Note: he said the conversion thing after his speech.
Allahpundit on May 19, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Ha. I was so focused on the quote that I didn’t see the context.
Thanks.
Slublog on May 19, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I was curious about context too. I’ve never heard anything like that from before. It’s a little creepy, if you ask me.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Yeah, choir members and little old church ladies are very scary.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Maybe he meant convert from left to right, politically.
mikeyboss on May 19, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Yes, that’s understood. And? How’d you like to live in a country where almost everyone is an atheist, the stated goal is to turn everyone into an atheist, and through public policy and personal appeals atheists are doing everything they can to turn you into an atheist? Sound good?
Allahpundit on May 19, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Well, if Newt Gingrich was a choir member or little old church lady, that’d be one thing. Considering he’s the former Speaker of the House, and potential Presidential candidate, talking about “convert(ing) all of America”, in reference to Reverend Falwell and Christianity, that’s entirely different.
amerpundit on May 19, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Hmmm, I think I’ve spotted the problem. By any measure imaginable, Americans are Christians. I suspect Newt was talking about conversion to a specific type of Christianity.
That’s the essence of the creepy. Suppose you don’t want to be a southern Baptist, but would prefer to be an Anglican? The problem isn’t that everyone hasn’t heard the message. The problem is that people have decided not only to follow Christianity or not, but which brand of Christianity.
Yeah, so this should bother people. There’s a swack of subtext here, which is even more troubling if it wasn’t a calculated pander.
Krydor on May 19, 2007 at 8:45 PM
So you honestly think that if Newt were president that he would pass a law that everyone now had to be a Christian? Surely your understanding of government is better than that.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Also, there already is a segment of society trying to destroy Christianity and make everyone atheist. It’s called the ACLU.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 8:51 PM
No. He couldn’t pass one so long as the First Amendment is intact. But if Keith Ellison gave a speech in which he said he hopes all of America converts to Islam, everyone here would be dumping in their pants, even if he stressed that he meant peaceful, voluntary conversions.
There are plenty of ways to pressure people without passing laws.
Allahpundit on May 19, 2007 at 8:56 PM
I’m not even convinced that Newt is a Christian and that he comprehends what he’s saying. As a Christian myself, those words just don’t ring true. Christians know that the death of any one of us doesn’t suddenly negate Christ’s command. That’s nonsensical. I just see it as playing to the crowd and doing some pandering.
INC on May 19, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Exhibit A. Why not to vote for Newt or any other Christian running on the platform of; “America wants a man of faith”.
Between this, the horrific democratic congress, and the whole “Bush-amnesty” thread I’m beginning to wonder whether or not I should come back home. But alas, I do have the spirit of Jefferson in me, so I’ll be back to fight these bastards. Man I hate the news these days. Has it always been this bad guys? Maybe it’s just me, but the world seems really depressing these days.
Thanks a lot AP for keeping me up to date on this crap, haha;).
Roark on May 19, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Best line of the year.
Nonfactor on May 19, 2007 at 9:02 PM
If someone running for office said he wanted everyone to be a muslim I just wouldn’t vote for him.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 9:02 PM
So if Bryan ran for a political office you would say he wasn’t acceptable because he is a “man of faith”?
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 9:04 PM
That and raising holy hell on every conservative blog you could find.
Nonfactor on May 19, 2007 at 9:05 PM
That looked like a demented ee cummings poem.
Slublog on May 19, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I don’t raise “holy hell”. Hell can never be holy.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 9:07 PM
To clarify, I mean that in the best possible way.
It made me laugh.
Slublog on May 19, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Cummings rocks pretty hard.
Nonfactor on May 19, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Maybe I can help you with this one, Allah. Christians believe that becoming saved or “born-again” is something that is beneficial to the individual. Christians believe that all those who aren’t Christians haven’t discovered true peace. So for Gingrich to use the terms “convert all of America”, it’s kinda like beauty pagent contestants who say they want “world peace” and to “end world hunger”.
Joshua P. Allem on May 19, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Indeed, just like Dawkins believes nonbelief is beneficial to the individual. It’s paternalistic when he does it; why isn’t it paternalistic when Christians do the same?
Allahpundit on May 19, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I’m not sure that’s a fair parallel. If Keith Ellison gave that speech, we’d know he was either lying or actually didn’t understand Islam. That makes for a rather different source of outrage. All that peaceful, voluntary conversions do for Islam is increase the numbers of followers sympathetic to the eventual violent, forced conversions that are specifically mandated by the religion.
I’ll admit, I’ve no idea where Newt is coming from. One day he’s throwing in with Hillary on pseudo-nationalized healthcare, the next he’s sucking up to the theo-cons. It stinks of triangulation and I doubt it does him any favors, but considering he’s unelectable anyway, at least he’s unpredictable.
Blacklake on May 19, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I think it is people wanting to share what they feel is true. Both for atheists and Christians. We have chosen to reject atheism and atheists have chosen to reject Christianity. But no one has the right to try and silence either group. We have the right to refute criticisms directed at our beliefs. I believe that Christians have the most to fear.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Would be nice to know the full context, who he was sayingn it to and in response to what…etc. Christians have really had some nasty things said about them, especially those around Falwell.
If I had to guess out of thin air on the quote alone, I’d agree with Joshua’s take on it.
Highrise on May 19, 2007 at 9:38 PM
I agree with you as well.
Highrise on May 19, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I enjoyed reading his stuff in high school, because it was just so different from anything else I read at the time.
Because it’s for your own good.
Seriously, though, I think that while evangelism is important, it’s not something that should be forced on the unwilling. Acceptance of faith is between you and God.
Slublog on May 19, 2007 at 9:42 PM
In one of his letters in the New Testament, Peter said Christians are to be sharing the reason for the hope within us in such a way that it is done humbly, without a self-serving or self-justifying attitude and being willing to take it on the chin, as it were, when we are unfairly attacked.
We obviously fail–and there are some who are not Christians, but whose claims and antics mar our reputation. We struggle, but we persevere.
INC on May 19, 2007 at 9:49 PM
If he means convert all America to evangelical Christianity, I’m moving to Australia.
WasatchMan on May 19, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Had you left off there I’d have advised, being as you are Allahpundit of HotAir, never mind what we think, just ask Newt – he’ll tell you.
But when you end with:
Pffttt!
Stephen M on May 19, 2007 at 9:52 PM
I decided to look into statistics regarding the number of Christians in America, and using the CIA Factbook, I came upon the number of 76%. I don’t know if I should include Mormons or not, as they are listed as something different.
So who and what is Newt talking about? By my way of looking at it, Christians are already the majority by a wide margin.
Krydor on May 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM
How you get to where you are based on this quote is beyond me.. All he said was that anybody on the left who hopes the opportunity to convert has gone does not understand why institutions like Liberty University exist.
The operative word is “opportunity”.
News2Use on May 19, 2007 at 10:03 PM
You put it in better words than I could form!
Highrise on May 19, 2007 at 10:05 PM
It depends on what he meant. Converting people to political conservatism or Christianity? Either way it’s not imperialism, which is forcing your will on someone without their consent.
aengus on May 19, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Agreed. Newt said the opportunity to convert. Let’s not get wrapped around the axle by one line of a speech. Nuff said.
The reason why evangelicals continue to evangelize is because Jesus commands all his followers to make disciples of all nations and baptize them. You atheists can hope all you want but as long as Christians are being obediant to the great commission you’re going to be evangelized. With Christians you’re gonna get prayed for and loved and is that so bad? Consider what it’s like in Muslim nations. I think being prayed for and loved beats the “convert/die/be enslaved” technique of the competition. I know you just want to be left alone and all but that’s just not gonna happen this side of eternity.
Mojave Mark on May 20, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Would atheism be the only thing the PC culture would allow you to ridicule without repercussion? If I were in that situation, I’d say the exact thing you say now. No thanks. Guess I took his comments in a less “comprehensive” way than you did.
tdau1997 on May 20, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Mojave Mark,
Just so I’m sure about this, and to clear up my earlier concerns. Are you saying that the only “real” Christians are evangelicals?
Krydor on May 20, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Krydor,
I don’t think that is what he meant. There are quite a number of different divisions of Christians.
Maybe I’m wrong.
By and large I think newt’s statement was not in context..and I think the best thing I’ve seen written so far here..is news2use’s.
Highrise on May 20, 2007 at 3:01 AM
I think the problem we’re all having here is with the word “convert” since as a Christian myself, I’ve never used it or even heard it used in Christian vocabulary. (At least not in modern times). I never felt I was converted into Christianity just as I never felt I was converted into Mathematics when I was taught how to count in primary school. What Newt meant is beyond me. I think he just meant that the opportunity to spread “the good news” hasn’t died with Falwell. But then again, why didn’t he just say that?
Joshua P. Allem on May 20, 2007 at 9:25 AM
It might be a little early to analyze Falwell’s career but the following is relevant to this discussion. I think Newt knew exactly what he meant.
April 1998: Confronted on national television with a controversial quote from America Can Be Saved!, a published collection of his sermons, Falwell denies having written the book or had anything to do with it. In the 1979 work, Falwell wrote, “I hope to live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!” Despite Falwell’s denial, Sword of the Lord Publishing, which produced the book, confirms that Falwell wrote it.
Bradky on May 20, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I suspect Dawkins would like everyone to be atheist (he seems to think religion is very dangerous) as many Christians would like to see everyone be Christian to get salvation. I think that was a stupid way to phrase things in light of all the focus on Islam and forced conversion, but to find something sinister in this is an over reaction.
frankj on May 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Answer: All Evangelicals are Christians but not all Christians are Evangelicals. Followers of Christ come in all different flavors. Evangelicals are more aggresive when it comes to missions and evangelism but the different denominations and sects stress different aspects of the Christian experience.
In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.
– Richard Baxter (a 17th century English theologian)
Mojave Mark on May 20, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Why is that? Are you concerned that the hundreds of thousands of full-time professional ministers and priests as well as centuries of Christian writing and teaching will be outmatched and outargued by the handful of prominent, outspoken atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens–any others?)? If so, it doesn’t speak very well of your confidence in your beliefs.
Are you concerned that Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs? Burned at the stake? Tortured in the name of atheism? If so, please provide us with examples of this persecution/burning/torture. If possible, please show us how it is worse than that perpetrated on unbelievers (of all sorts) by Christians.
Or are you really complaining about the fact that atheists feel freer now to confront Christian dogma and question it?
If so, an atheist might believe that you have good reason for your fear.
student on May 20, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I do live in that country. Every progressive movement in the country has its own special interest clutches in a government body. Atheists don’t lobby for the removal of prayer from schools? It not like atheists are trying to erase the Christian heritage within the country or anything like that? That’s crazy talk. It’s those Christofacists trying to legally prevent people from proselytizing atheist views. That happens all the time, right Allahpundit? Like those crazed Christofacists that thought evolution was a theory and not absolute truth. I see where you are coming from…
Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Mojave Mark,
Answer: All Evangelicals are Christians but not all Christians are Evangelicals. Followers of Christ come in all different flavors. Evangelicals are more aggresive when it comes to missions and evangelism but the different denominations and sects stress different aspects of the Christian experience.
Well, I understand that and that’s why the subtext troubles me. Would it fair or unfair to say that a Newt Administration would appoint people with a similar religious outlook? If he supports, as he probably should based on his beliefs, this notion of converting everyone to Christianity (I don’t think he means Roman Catholicsm) then does it follow that he would use the White House as a bully pulpit of sorts?
On the strategy front, it’s poor timing and poor taste.
Krydor on May 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Who was Gingrich’s audience for his statement? Was he still speaking at Liberty University?
If so, then any Christian would understand what he meant by that…. simply.. go out , be good Christians, try to spread the word. The end.
Its that simple.
He probably didn’t use lawyer like precision in his speech because its common sense to his audience what he means.
Somehow its all you smart peolpe who seem to be baffled by it. Funny.
VinceP1974 on May 20, 2007 at 12:46 PM
This articles gives some details on Gingrich’s idea about religion
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/rediscovering_god_in_america.html
VinceP1974 on May 20, 2007 at 1:01 PM
No matter who is in the White House you’re going to get that presidents cadre of cabinet members et al who will reflect his/her take on life and faith. If Romney becomes president expect a large number of Mormans to follow him to the White House. If Hillary becomes president expect a large number of liberal theologian types to follow her. (You know the kind, the bible really doesn’t mean what it says kind.) If Obama becomes president expect Mulims to be in the cabinet. If Huckabee becomes president (he was a Baptist minister) expect Evangelicals to populate the cabinet. In the end, we-the-people pick which world view and faith view will dominate in the executive branch. I think as long as everyone knows where the candidates are coming from then it’s fair across the board.
Mojave Mark on May 20, 2007 at 2:07 PM
What twaddle! You sound like those loonies on the left who are always hyperventilating about the police state and internment camps even as they declare their lunacy in the public square.
In the first place, this is not a country where almost everyone is an atheist. To the contrary, about 76%, according to Krydor on May 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM, are Christians. And please, knock off the whining about school prayer already. After years of imposing your religion on others, non-Christians and atheists alike, you’re complaining when you finally get a little push back.
And please, please, if you’re going to talk about evolution at least learn something about it and stop repeating the tired, and tiresome, talking points from the creationists that “it’s just a theory.” Evolution is “just a theory” in exactly the same way that gravity is.
As for all those atheists controlling the government, I hardly know what to say. I don’t think that’s an argument that’s going to get much traction with anyone, left, right, religious, or non-religious.
Finally, where are all these atheists whose stated desire is to convert you to atheism? Do they come to your door on Saturday morning and wake you up to read passages from Dawkins? As I said in an earlier post, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are the only three prominent atheists to take a public stand that I can think of. Doubtless there are more, but not merely as many as the Christian missionary types who constantly bombard us with their efforts.
student on May 20, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Isn’t Obama from the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the Church of Christ)?
And AP, yes, if Keith Ellison said the same thing, I would be up in arms. But the difference between his religion and my faith is that there isn’t a huge faction of Christianity currently out there trying to “convert” people by threat of death, and if there is, I haven’t heard of it. And if I hear of it, I’ll actually speak out against it, because that is not what Christ taught–you cannot be saved if your heart isn’t in it, and the Bible is very clear about free will and choosing salvation–it’s a huge theme throughout the Bible. Yes, of course, Christians want to teach and convert (not a bad word–in my book, it just means teach the gospel and baptize into salvation those who choose to believe and follow, basically, and I’m not going to stop using the word just because Islam uses the same word and means something different by it) nonbelievers. We believe salvation in Christ to be a wonderful thing, and believe the afterlife in heaven will be a wonderful experience, so of course we want to take as many people as possible with us. Plus, Christ commands Christians to evangelize. “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”
sarahk on May 20, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Mojave Mark,
I don’t know if you’ve read this but it speaks to the specific problem of evangelizing within the government. While Bush is essentialy inept at keeping the Church & State separate, his presence seems (note disclaimer) to make such stuff acceptable within government agencies.
Just imagine how much more overt that would be from a Newt-type administration. It’s why the statement gives me pause.
Krydor on May 20, 2007 at 5:31 PM
My point before was that it doesn’t matter who is in the White House in terms of the rest of the country being evangelized by the president. This can take on many different forms. Clinton evagelized us to hedonism and bohemianism. I was teaching elementary school at the time and I guarantee you, that every child on the playground knew what oral sex was after the Clinton presidency.
An eternity Mack truck is heading straight at us. The Christian is going to warn you to get out of the way. This may offend you but he’s still going to try and save you from the Mack truck. You may choose to not listen to him in which case you’ll be run over but at least you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Some may find Christians tiresome, but know that they love you and pray for you if you’re an unbeliever. We have freedom of religion in the U.S. not freedom from religion.
Mojave Mark on May 20, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Their poor, corrupted little souls. You’re speaking in hyperbole, too. I doubt it if “every child” knew what oral sex was, and even if they did what fault is it of Clinton’s? If I got a blowjob and it was reported on 24/7 by all the news media would it be my fault that kids know what a blowjob is now?
Yet you’re still going to hell for eternity if you don’t believe in exactly what they tell you to believe in. What a crock of fear-mongering BS.
Nonfactor on May 20, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Christian students in state universities are often being maligned for their beliefs and these are state funded universities and the professors are paid by state money. It is now even happening in high schools and elementary schools. It is not about prayer, it is about a lack of tolerance on the part of the state regarding freedom of religious belief in the public square.
Rose on May 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Sorry Rose but here in the deep south it is much different. Schools get a wink and a nod about prayer in school and if you are not a good southern baptist student you are told often that you will burn in hell if you don’t change your ways.
The lack of tolerance down “heah” is decidedly different than that which you describe.
Bradky on May 20, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I live in Southern California so I’m sure there probably are differences. So I guess we both have opposite experiences. But the universities definitely tend towards the atheistic viewpoint all over the country.
Rose on May 20, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Like I said, some find Christians tiresome.
Mojave Mark on May 20, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Mojave Mark,
Some may find Christians tiresome, but know that they love you and pray for you if you’re an unbeliever. We have freedom of religion in the U.S. not freedom from religion.
I don’t find Christians I know tiresome. I’m also quite sure that even though they are aware of my unbelief, not a one of them prays for me.
Evangelicalism, as practiced in the USA, is a unique beastie. This always comes back to this notion of a true Christian, for me.
Krydor on May 20, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Yes probably very different. I do agree about the universities bent on less than a Christian focus. But I’ve got child who went through college already and two others in college. How you raise them will carry the day when they are finished with college. Mine are no worse for the wear and tear, but maybe a little wiser.
Bradky on May 20, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Why don’t you ask them if they have ever prayed for you. They may surprise you.
The New Testament of the Bible describes in great detail what a true Christian is. I have travelled a lot of the world and I’ve lived with and worshipped with Christians from other countries. In many ways we’re all alike. I have seen many more similarities than differences.
Mojave Mark on May 20, 2007 at 8:18 PM
I pray for all of my atheist friends. Some of them I have told this, because I know they won’t be offended by my telling them. Others I haven’t told, because they would be inherently offended by that for whatever reason, and it may be that some other Christian or many other Christians along the line has or have offended them in some way, so all of us Christians have been painted with a broad brush as harsh or judgmental or offensive just because we pray for the people in our lives.
I am baffled by how this can offend someone, my genuinely wanting to pray for that person’s salvation based on my beliefs (while not beating him/her over the head with said beliefs) or to pray for any problems that person is having in his/her life at the moment.
So yeah, maybe they’ve been praying for you but keeping it to themselves because perhaps they think you’re one of the ones who would be inherently offended by the mere thought of a Christian seeking out help for you from God.
And I apologize for the offensive lack of good grammar in this comment. Christians, atheists, Jews, and all other world religions should be able to unite in disgust over my poor language usage.
sarahk on May 20, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I swear the lack of understanding some of you “conservatives” have is unbelievable, Allahpundit included.
Before you jump to your “They want a Theocracy!” conspiracy, think about what the hell people in a religion actually believe. Anyone in any meaningful religion is going to want to spread their belief to everyone. Anything less would imply they didn’t take their beliefs seriously or they are selfish.
So yes, of course every real religion wants to convert everyone. No, they don’t all use violence and coercion to do this.
Before you knock religion for being this way, ask yourself what the world would be without it. You libertarian nuts, go read a history book about the last 100 years before you answer. (And yes, I’ve read about the 1900 years prior and they don’t add up to what the godlessness of the last 100 did)
Someone please tell me who contributes to this blog who ain’t either a liberal or libertarian? Are any of the main contributors conservative?
tadams1138 on May 20, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Stick around.
Mojave Mark on May 21, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Comment pages: